User talk:CurryGreenLine
| Depot | Fleet Size | Fleet | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depot | The fleet size | (Number of Single Deckers buses based on fleet size) Single Deckers | (Number of Double Deckers buses based on fleet size) Double Deckers | (Number of Articulated buses based on fleet size) Articulated |
Images
Hi, good to see you having a batch of buses you uploaded, however some of your images, with the landtransportguru watermark images in the middle can still be copyright. Due to that, you can see by my quotes LTG images are copyright for some reasons and many people complaining about it.
RE
Hi CurryGreenLine,
Thanks for your reply. I understand that you’ve put in effort to explain things and that you didn’t mean any offence. Likewise, I don’t mean to offend you either — my original message was meant as constructive feedback, but I admit the tone might have come across more direct than intended.
To clarify where I was coming from: my feedback wasn’t aimed at your grammar or spelling, even though it may have sounded that way. What I actually wanted to highlight was more about the structure, logical flow, and clarity in how the information is presented.
Here are a few specific points that raised the concerns which I had to revert your edits:
- Paragraphing and readability
When everything is placed into a single block of text, it's hard for readers to follow the logic or separate different points. Breaking your explanation into clear paragraphs can really help with this. - Sentence structure and flow
A lot of your edits use short, direct sentences like “Linking to EW27 Boon Lay station, Travel along Tah ching Road.” While that can work in certain contexts, it often makes the write-up sound abrupt or robotic. It may also weaken the explanation because the logic or background information is missing. - Ambiguity and focus
Most of the phrasing in your edits can be unclear or vague, which makes it hard to understand the intent. For example, the way “alternative route” was described could be interpreted in several ways, which is why I suggested a clearer rewording.
I completely get that explaining bus routes and their functions is complex — especially with the feeder/industrial/trunk classification — and it’s not always easy to phrase it perfectly. I also recognize I’m not perfect in English either in my earlier message (i.e. Supernutorcrazy is not perfect in English), but I always try to focus on clear, logical presentation — and I hope that this time, my message would came through better.
At the end of the day, we're all here to improve the page and help readers understand the content better.
Regards
Supernutorcrazy (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2025 (+08)